Journal of Research in Law and Public Affairs

Criminological Analysis of Terrorism

2025-09-07T18:12:53+03:00

The article “Criminological Analysis of Terrorism” aims to examine the terrorist phenomenon from a criminological perspective, highlighting how classical and modern theories of criminology can explain the emergence, development and perpetuation of ideologically motivated violence. Terrorism is analyzed as a form of organized crime and as an extreme expression of social deviance, characterized by the systematic use of violence against civilians to achieve political, religious or ideological goals. The paper begins by conceptually delimiting terrorism, highlighting the terminological and political difficulties related to its definition, as well as its classification according to motivation and actor (state, religious, nationalist, extreme right or left terrorism). A review is made of the main relevant criminological theories – such as the theory of anomie, the theory of differential association or the theory of social control – which offer explanations regarding the motivation of terrorist actors and the social context of radicalization. The article focuses on the profile of the terrorist offender, contrary to the stereotypes that associate him with marginal or mentally unstable individuals. Studies show that many of the terrorists are educated people, with a deep ideological motivation and a strong group identification. The radicalization process is approached from a multidimensional perspective, analyzing its stages, psychosocial risk factors and the role of informal networks or the online environment in facilitating it. Regarding response measures, the analysis highlights the importance of a prevention framework that includes both social and educational interventions (primary prevention) and security and deradicalization policies (secondary and tertiary prevention). The comparative study between jihadist and far-right terrorism reveals similarities in radicalization mechanisms and ideological differences, providing a balanced picture of the plurality of contemporary terrorist threats. In conclusion, the article supports the need for an integrated approach, combining criminological explanations with effective institutional responses. Terrorism cannot be understood outside the social, political and cultural context, and its prevention requires inter-institutional, international collaboration and strengthening the resilience of vulnerable communities.

Interdependence Between Law, Morals and Sociology

2025-09-07T18:47:06+03:00

The interdependence between law, morality and sociology constitutes a fundamental pillar in understanding the complexity of the norms that regulate social life. Although each of these fields operates with its own concepts and methods, they do not operate in isolation, but influence each other in a continuous process of shaping individual and collective behaviors. Law, as a formal normative system, has the role of ensuring social order and cohesion through generally binding norms, sanctioned by state authority. However, the content of these norms is often based on the moral values of society, which provide criteria of justice, fairness and legitimacy. In turn, morality exerts a significant influence on the legislative process and legal interpretation, even if it does not benefit from a formal coercive mechanism. Sociology contributes to understanding how legal and moral norms are received and applied in practice, analyzing social dynamics, the degree of conformity and the tensions between normativity and reality. In this sense, the sociology of law plays a crucial role in assessing the efficiency and fairness of legal norms in the concrete social context. Thus, the relationship between law, morality and sociology is one of complementarity, but also of dynamic tension. In modern societies, the balance between these dimensions is essential for maintaining a legitimate legal framework, functional and adapted to changing social values and structures.

Video Surveillance – Personal Data Processing

2025-09-07T20:48:26+03:00

Video surveillance undoubtedly constitutes personal data processing. The legality of this processing is a challenge for Romanian personal data controllers, as the line between legal obligation and the controller’s legitimate interest is very fine. Another challenge is correctly establishing the purpose of video surveillance: is it for the physical security of assets and individuals? Is it for employee monitoring? Each of these purposes entails documentation that demonstrates the employer’s interest, as well as the methods to respect the principles of personal data processing and ensure their security.

Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in the Analysis of Possession for Usucapion

2025-09-07T21:13:32+03:00

This paper analyzes the complexity and ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal process of establishing possession, as a fundamental element of usucapion. In Romanian civil law, usucapion represents an original way of acquiring property, conditioned by a useful, continuous, uninterrupted, undisturbed possession and under the name of the owner, according to art. 930 of the Civil Code. The assessment of these conditions is, traditionally, the attribute of the court, but the emergence of AI-based technologies introduces new ways of factual and evidentiary analysis, which require an adequate ethical and legal framework. The use of AI in the field of law, including in the context of usucapion, promises to increase efficiency by analyzing large volumes of data – such as satellite images, cadastral archives or video recordings – and by corroborating information obtained from various sources. However, these advantages are counterbalanced by significant ethical risks: algorithmic errors, lack of decision-making transparency and the possibility of systemic discrimination caused by incomplete or biased data. A central aspect of the ethical approach is the risk that algorithms may misinterpret the nature of possession – for example, considering sporadic presence as continuous possession. Such errors can seriously affect the recognition or rejection of a property right. Furthermore, the use of AI in legal proceedings calls into question the respect of the fundamental principles of the right to defense and adversarial proceedings, especially when the algorithms cannot be audited or explained (so-called “black box algorithms”). Another crucial element is the compatibility of the use of AI with the right to privacy. Since the analysis of possession frequently involves the use of personal data – images, digital footprints or information from social networks – it is essential that this practice complies with the legislation on the protection of personal data (GDPR), and the case law of the ECHR. In legal terms, evidence generated or interpreted by AI must comply with the conditions of admissibility and loyalty of evidence, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. Any evidence administered must be able to be contested, interpreted and discussed equally by the parties, which is not always guaranteed in the case of opaque or insufficiently documented AI. The paper therefore proposes a series of recommendations: using AI only as an assistive tool, not a decision-making one; auditing and external validation of the algorithms used; establishing a clear right to contest the results generated by AI; and developing a specific regulatory framework to regulate the use of automated technologies in the field of real rights. In conclusion, although AI can bring important benefits in the management and assessment of possession for usucapion, these advantages must be balanced by rigorous legal and ethical control, in order to protect the fundamental rights of the person and to maintain the integrity of the act of justice.

Usucapion and the Conflict with Public Property Rights – Legal Limitations

2025-09-07T21:29:58+03:00

Usucapion, also known as acquisitive prescription, represents an original way of acquiring the right of ownership, based on possession exercised continuously, peacefully and publicly, under the conditions and for the duration established by law. However, this legal institution encounters an essential limitation regarding its applicability to goods belonging to the public domain. The right to public property, regulated by the Romanian Constitution (art. 136 paragraph 4), is characterized by inalienability, imprescriptibility and insecurities. Thus, goods in the public domain cannot be acquired by usucapion, regardless of the good faith of the possessor or the duration of possession.

The Romanian Civil Code (art. 922 paragraph 2) reinforces this prohibition, expressly excluding the possibility of usucapion over goods that form the object of public property. This exclusion is justified by the general interest and the need to protect the patrimony of the state or of administrative-territorial units.

The jurisprudence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as well as of the Constitutional Court, has reinforced this orientation, stating that the imprescriptibility of the right to public property is an absolute constitutional guarantee. However, in practice, situations of uncertainty regarding the legal status of certain assets frequently arise, especially in the absence of their registration in the land register or official inventory, which can lead to conflicts between bona fide owners and public authorities.

To avoid these disputes, a clear and public record of assets in the public domain and a coherent administrative reform are necessary, which would strengthen the security of the civil circuit and avoid abuses or errors of legal qualification. In conclusion, although usucapion is a useful mechanism for stabilizing property relations, its applicability is legitimately restricted when it conflicts with the imperative of protecting public property.

House Arrest as a Custodial Preventive Measure. Conceptual Clarifications, Legal Framework and Relevant Jurisprudence

2025-09-07T21:45:59+03:00

House arrest constitutes one of the most significant custodial preventive measures, alongside pre-trial detention, being regulated under Romanian criminal procedure law as a less intrusive yet effective alternative, aligned with the needs of the criminal process. The present article aims to examine the legal framework governing this measure within the national legislation, with a focus on the applicable conditions, duration, jurisdiction, and procedural requirements, in light of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 135/2010) and Law No. 146/2021 on electronic monitoring.

Following an overview of the general conditions for ordering house arrest and the obligations that may be imposed on the defendant, the article highlights interpretative and practical challenges arising from the inconsistent application of the legal provisions—particularly regarding the notion of “domicile,” the required evidentiary standard, and the drafting of supplementary obligations. The issue of effective monitoring is also addressed, drawing attention to the lack of adequate technical equipment and human resources, as well as the absence of clear legal criteria for proportionate sanctions in cases of non-compliance. Law No. 146/2021 is examined as a complementary normative act, aimed at enabling electronic surveillance in cases of house arrest, as well as other measures (judicial supervision, protection orders, etc.), with an emphasis on its limitations in scope and the necessity for its gradual expansion.

The article is grounded in legal provisions, relevant case law of national courts, including the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as well as in the analysis of judicial practice conducted by the National Institute of Magistracy. The conclusions underline the need to improve the normative and institutional framework in order to ensure a coherent, effective, and rights-compliant application of the measure, with full respect for the fundamental rights of the individual.

The Minor in Relation to Criminal Sanctions – Socio-Legal Perspectives on the Fairness and Effectiveness of Applicable Punishments

2025-09-09T15:23:57+03:00

The present paper analyzes public perceptions of the sanctions applicable to minors in conflict with the law, as well as the actual effectiveness of the educational measures provided by the Romanian legal framework. Starting from the observation of a persistent ambivalence in public opinion – between the desire for rehabilitation and the tendency toward firm sanctions – the study explores the social and institutional mechanisms that fuel this tension. The influence of mass media in shaping collective representations of juvenile delinquency is examined, with emphasis on the impact of stereotypes and alarmist narratives, such as the “super-predator”.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of measures applicable to minors is structured along three complementary dimensions: behavioral (recidivism and post-sanction conduct), social (community and family reintegration), and institutional (normative coherence and implementation functionality). Each dimension is analyzed in relation to specialized research and to international standards in the field of juvenile justice. The study argues for the necessity of a child-centered approach (“children first, offenders second”) and for integrated interventions that include educational, psychosocial, and family support.

By correlating examples from international literature and analyzing the dysfunctions of the Romanian system – such as the lack of specialized personnel, the inconsistent application of measures, or the deficient cooperation between institutions – the paper highlights the importance of systemic reform supported by evidence-based public policies. It underlines the fundamental role of civic education, institutional transparency, and the professionalization of the actors involved in building a fair, effective, and reintegration-oriented juvenile justice system.

Justifying Causes in Criminal Law – Doctrinal Analysis of the Conditions for Applicability and the Exonerating Effects on Criminal Liability

2025-09-09T15:47:33+03:00

The present study examines the legal regime of justifying causes in criminal law, with an emphasis on both their theoretical and normative foundations, as well as their application in case law. It analyses the classical justifying causes – such as self-defence, necessity, and the victim’s consent – as forms of excluding the unlawfulness of the act, thereby resulting in the removal of criminal liability. Their objective nature is highlighted, which entails the extension of legal effects to all participants in the commission of the act, regardless of their procedural role, provided they were aware of the justifying circumstances.

Furthermore, the study addresses the necessary distinction between justifying causes and grounds of non-imputability, with special reference to error regarding the existence of a justifying cause. This distinction has direct implications for the legal classification of the act and the possibility of engaging criminal liability. The analysis is complemented by considerations regarding possible tortious civil liability in situations where the act is not criminally punishable but has caused damage.

The final part of the paper is devoted to atypical or controversial situations in which legal doctrine and judicial practice have reconsidered the boundaries of justification. Cases are examined such as the conflict between two equally binding legal duties, the invocation of freedom of expression in the context of otherwise typical offences, or disproportionate reactions caused by psychological provocation or prolonged abuse. Such scenarios illustrate the need for a nuanced interpretation of the institution, allowing for adaptation to the complexity of real-life situations, with full respect for the principle of legality.

Through this approach, the study underscores the importance of a prudent and balanced application of justifying causes, one that takes into account not only the legal norms but also constitutional values and the concrete circumstances of each case.

The Conditions for the Validity of Marriage in Romanian Civil Law. Legal Requirements, Doctrinal Interpretations, and Practical Implications

2025-09-09T16:24:20+03:00

The paper analyzes the conditions for the validity of marriage in Romanian civil law through a doctrinal and normative approach, with an emphasis on the clear distinction between substantive and formal requirements, as well as the legal implications arising from their non-compliance. In the Romanian legal system, marriage is regulated as a solemn, bilateral, and personal act subject to public order requirements, and its validity requires the cumulative fulfillment of conditions expressly provided by law. The study examines matrimonial capacity, the free and unvitiated consent of the future spouses, the absence of legal impediments, and compliance with the form required ad validitatem.

Attention is given to defects of consent that are admissible in matters of marriage and to doctrinal interpretations regarding the distinction between such defects and other causes of ineffectiveness. The relationship between the expression of matrimonial intent and the conclusion of a matrimonial agreement is also analyzed, with emphasis on situations in which the latter may influence the validity of the marriage. The paper examines the implications of the recent Law No. 140/2022 on the capacity of protected persons to validly consent to marriage, highlighting the impact of the reform on the applicable legal regime.

The analysis is based exclusively on established legal literature published after the entry into force of the 2009 Civil Code and aims for a technical and systematic treatment of the topic. The effects of absolute or relative nullity in cases of non-compliance with validity conditions are highlighted, and a coherent interpretation of the relevant legal provisions is proposed, in correlation with the social and legal purpose of the institution of marriage.

Offences Against Sexual Freedom and Integrity. Legal Foundations and Current Perspectives

2025-09-09T16:40:26+03:00

This article examines the legal framework governing offences against sexual freedom and integrity under Romanian criminal law, with a focus on recent developments influenced by European legislative standards and international jurisprudence. The analysis considers both the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the impact of European Union directives and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the interpretation of key legal concepts such as consent, the victim’s vulnerability, or the power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim.

The text addresses the difficulties of legal classification, highlighting the wide range of forms in which such offences may occur and the need for clear legal definitions that reflect the complexity of interpersonal relationships and social contexts. It also discusses aggravated forms of these offences and the challenges of applying the legal provisions in cases where the victim is a minor, subject to a relationship of subordination, or exposed to emotional or economic coercion.

A separate section is devoted to the situations in which the initiation of criminal proceedings is subject to the filing of a prior complaint, which may hinder the fulfilment of the objectives of criminal law - particularly in cases where victims do not have access to adequate legal, psychological, or institutional support.

Finally, the article analyses the normative contribution of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 and the extent to which it has contributed to the development of a legal framework focused on the effective protection of the victim, in line with constitutional and European values. The article advocates for an integrated approach in which criminal law plays an active role in safeguarding the dignity and autonomy of individuals against sexual abuse.

Rule of Law and the Democratic Mechanisms of Political Parties

2025-09-10T14:25:54+03:00

This paper examines the close relationship between the rule of law and political pluralism, both from a constitutional perspective and in light of European and international standards. The analysis begins with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Romania, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, highlighting how these instruments define and safeguard the balance between public authority and fundamental freedoms. Particular attention is given to dysfunctions observed in Romanian political life, such as decision-making opacity, clientelism, and excessive centralization of decisions, and to their relationship with the principles of legality and equality enshrined in domestic and international law. The paper also underscores the role of continuous political training for party members and the importance of effective public oversight, exercised in part through the involvement of civil society and the press. Drawing on examples from other EU member states, we highlight best practices that can be adapted to strengthen transparency, integrity, and fair competition in the political process. Our conclusions emphasize that the consistent application of rule of law principles, the decentralization of party decision-making processes, and the reinforcement of monitoring mechanisms are essential conditions for consolidating a fair, competitive, and public interest–oriented political environment, in full alignment with Romania’s European commitments.

Combating Crime in Romania, between Prevention, Intervention, and Criminal Liability

2025-09-10T14:50:35+03:00

Combating crime represents a fundamental objective of the rule of law, and the effectiveness of this intervention depends on the clarity of the legal framework and the functionality of the institutions involved. In Romania, the legal response to criminality is regulated by the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a series of special laws that define both the typologies of offenses and the means of prevention and punishment. This article analyzes from a legal perspective the main legislative and institutional instruments that underpin the state’s response to unlawful acts. It considers the clear distinction between crimes and misdemeanors, with an emphasis on the sanctioning system and the principle of legality. Furthermore, the responsibilities of the police in applying administrative measures, such as identity checks or escorting individuals to the station, are discussed in the context of constitutional requirements concerning the protection of fundamental rights. The role of specialized structures, such as the General Anticorruption Directorate - DGA, is examined in terms of administrative efficiency and the prevention of institutional corruption. The criminal trial process is also highlighted as a guarantor of legality and public order, along with the importance of individualizing punishments to prevent recidivism and promote social reintegration. The study adopts a doctrinal and legislative approach, integrating domestic norms and European standards, with the aim of highlighting the legal coherence and administrative efficiency of the Romanian state’s intervention in the field of criminal justice.

Review of the volume “General Aspects Regarding Public Administration During the Pandemic” by Sorin Robu

2025-09-18T13:25:19+03:00

The work General Aspects Regarding Public Administration During the Pandemic, written by Sorin Robu, analyzes how public administration responded to the challenges generated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The author explores topics such as the ethics of civil servants, administrative transparency, and institutional adaptability in the face of crises. With a particular focus on the ethical dimension and the importance of digitizing administrative processes, the work proposes clear directions for modernizing and improving the efficiency of public administration. It is a valuable contribution to understanding institutional dynamics in crisis situations and to shaping the necessary reforms in public administration.

Review of the volume “Sociologie juridică. Caiet de seminar” [Sociology of Law. Seminar Workbook], by Loredana Terec-Vlad, Pro Universitaria Publishing House, 2025

2025-09-18T13:30:46+03:00

Sociology of Law. Seminar Workbook by Loredana Terec-Vlad is a didactic tool designed for law students, effectively combining sociology with legal analysis. The work explores the theoretical foundations of law as a social phenomenon, the functions of legal institutions, the relationship between norms and context, and the moral and epistemological challenges of legal practice. From a legal perspective, the workbook underscores the need to understand the social context for effective interpretation of the law and contributes to fostering critical thinking among future legal professionals.